But, but, but...Liberty, you are grabbing at straws. Both cites fail to point to one law that supports their statements. The law firm makes the bold statement: "An Off Duty Cop Who is Injured is always considered on duty and can make a workers compensation claim in Ohio." True, but that does NOT mean they will get it. See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4123.01 For off-duty peace officers to get Workers' compensation they have to get hurt while being involved in an inherently dangerous situation. In other words, off-duty, but in the line of duty.

The officer referred to in that article lives right across town from me and got worker's comp. because Akron Police Department's policy provides that all officers are always on duty. Cleveland is the same, and so are most departments in Ohio. This issue is so elementary, and it is taught in intro to criminal justice class in every college in the state and in all Ohio police academies. The Cleveland Clinic and you are the only ones I have ever heard of questioning it. Accept when you said on the first page of this topic that police officers have arrest powers even while off duty.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

But, but, but...Liberty, you are grabbing at straws. Both cites fail to point to one law that supports their statements. The law firm makes the bold statement: "An Off Duty Cop Who is Injured is always considered on duty and can make a workers compensation claim in Ohio." True, but that does NOT mean they will get it. See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4123.01 For off-duty peace officers to get Workers' compensation they have to get hurt while being involved in an inherently dangerous situation. In other words, off-duty, but in the line of duty.

The officer referred to in that article lives right across town from me and got worker's comp. because Akron Police Department's policy provides that all officers are always on duty. Cleveland is the same, and so are most departments in Ohio. This issue is so elementary, and it is taught in intro to criminal justice class in every college in the state and in all Ohio police academies. The Cleveland Clinic and you are the only ones I have ever heard of questioning it. Accept when you said on the first page of this topic that police officers have arrest powers even while off duty.

You sure jumped to a conclusion. "One of the victims was another off-duty police officer who was grazed by a bullet and suffered minor injuries." This is a unnamed officer, but I'm sure he was awarded workers compensation because he was involved in an inherently dangerous situation. Not because he was supposedly on duty.

I was speaking from personal knowledge of the situation. Additionally,
Kenan Ivery was indicted and convicted for Agg. Murder with a death specification (for Killing Justin while he was engaged in his duties) on the basis that Akron officers are always on duty per department policy. The term off-duty for these officers can be better described as off-shift. The workers comp. claim was the same thing.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Liberty wrote:I was speaking from personal knowledge of the situation. Additionally,
Kenan Ivery was indicted and convicted for Agg. Murder with a death specification (for Killing Justin while he was engaged in his duties) on the basis that Akron officers are always on duty per department policy. The term off-duty for these officers can be better described as off-shift. The workers comp. claim was the same thing.

Your narrative doesn't fit the law.

2921.44 Dereliction of duty:
(A) No law enforcement officer shall negligently do any of the following:
(2) Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance.

2903.01 Aggravated murder.
(E) No person shall purposely cause the death of a law enforcement officer whom the offender knows or has reasonable cause to know is a law enforcement officer when either of the following applies:
(1) The victim, at the time of the commission of the offense, is engaged in the victim's duties.
(2) It is the offender's specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer.

Based on the law the officer either being on duty or off duty is irrelevant. The officer was required to act in the line of duty because if he didn't act it would be dereliction of duty. All the officer, irrelevant of being on duty or off duty, had to do is announce he was an officer for aggravated murder to apply.

The discussion is over with me until you bring concrete evidence that the hospital has been shown to have violated the officers rights. Not based on your speculation.

color of law wrote:The discussion is over with me until you bring concrete evidence that the hospital has been shown to have violated the officers rights. Not based on your speculation.

That was already done on the first page of this discussion. An owner of a private business in Ohio that is open to the public has no legal authority to prohibit an off duty peace officer from carrying a firearm in his business. This is very plainly spelled out in the Ohio Revised Code and explained in a controlling opinion of the Ohio Attorney General, i.e., the official position of the State of Ohio.

Last edited by Liberty on Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Liberty wrote:I was speaking from personal knowledge of the situation. Additionally,
Kenan Ivery was indicted and convicted for Agg. Murder with a death specification (for Killing Justin while he was engaged in his duties) on the basis that Akron officers are always on duty per department policy. The term off-duty for these officers can be better described as off-shift. The workers comp. claim was the same thing.

Your narrative doesn't fit the law.

2921.44 Dereliction of duty:
(A) No law enforcement officer shall negligently do any of the following:
(2) Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance.

2903.01 Aggravated murder.
(E) No person shall purposely cause the death of a law enforcement officer whom the offender knows or has reasonable cause to know is a law enforcement officer when either of the following applies:
(1) The victim, at the time of the commission of the offense, is engaged in the victim's duties.
(2) It is the offender's specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer.

Based on the law the officer either being on duty or off duty is irrelevant. The officer was required to act in the line of duty because if he didn't act it would be dereliction of duty. All the officer, irrelevant of being on duty or off duty, had to do is announce he was an officer for aggravated murder to apply.

You don't know what you are talking about.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Liberty wrote:explained in a controlling opinion of the Ohio Attorney General, i.e., the official position of the State of Ohio.

Not true. The AG only makes recommendations and his own interpretations, and those recommendations cannot be used in court. The interpretations that matter are those of judges as their interpretations of the law carry the force of the law.

It is the controlling opinion of the Ohio Attorney General; meaning that there have been no subsequent changes in opinion. It is the official position of the State of Ohio because the Attorney General of Ohio is the state’s official attorney.

What gives it force is how compelling it is being consistent with the text of the law and the fact that the legislature had 12 years to change the language of the statute and chose not to. Moreover, the legislature made subsequent changed to the law consistent with the AG’s opinion. See my original post:

Liberty wrote:The Attorney General opined that R.C. § 2923.126 extends the right to carry a firearm to off duty peace officers, but does not extend the restrictions that specifically apply to "licensees." The Attorney General noted that, while the legislature expressly extended the right, conspicuously absent was an imposition of a requirement to be subjected to the restrictions that apply to "licensees," while at the same time, the legislature extended that same right to out of state concealed carry holders and additionally expressly extended the restrictions to out-of-staters that are imposed upon Ohio "licensees."

I should note that the legislature has had 13 years with which to know of the opinion of the Attorney General and has chosen not to change the language to extend the restrictions to off duty peace officers. Furthermore, the legislature has subsequently added two classes of persons (i.e., retired peace officers and members of the military) to R.C. § 2923.126 and expressly extended both the right to carry and the restrictions, but has not changed the language to extend the restrictions to peace officers. Current R.C. § 2923.126 can be found here: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126. That is a very, very clear legislative intent that the restrictions that apply to "licensees" in R.C. § 2923.126(B) and R.C. § 2923.126(C) do not apply to peace officers.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

Liberty wrote:It is the controlling opinion of the Ohio Attorney General; meaning that there have been no subsequent changes in opinion. It is the official position of the State of Ohio because the Attorney General of Ohio is the state’s official attorney.

What gives it force is how compelling it is being consistent with the text of the law and the fact that the legislature had 12 years to change the language of the statute and chose not to. Moreover, the legislature made subsequent changed to the law consistent with the AG’s opinion. See my original post:

Read that line that you typed. He's the state's official attorney. That still does not mean his letter has force of law. His OPINION still has to be presented before a judge and a judge may agree or disagree with his opinion. For every ATTORNEY'S OPINION there is a contradictory opinion. A judge is the only one that has the power to chose which opinion is law.

JediSkipdogg wrote:He's the state's official attorney. That still does not mean his letter has force of law. His OPINION still has to be presented before a judge and a judge may agree or disagree with his opinion. For every ATTORNEY'S OPINION there is a contradictory opinion. A judge is the only one that has the power to chose which opinion is law.

That is correct. I never said otherwise.

Do you think the Ohio Supreme Court would rule that off-duty peace officers are subject to the restrictions that “licensees” are subjected to in R.C. § 2923.126(B) and R.C. § 2923.126(C) even though the very text of the statute expressly excludes peace officers from those restrictions? I should also note again that the Ohio General Assembly had over 12 years to change the statute to include peace officers, but instead added two separate classifications of persons that both the rights and the restrictions of “licensees” applies to.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

JediSkipdogg wrote:He's the state's official attorney. That still does not mean his letter has force of law. His OPINION still has to be presented before a judge and a judge may agree or disagree with his opinion. For every ATTORNEY'S OPINION there is a contradictory opinion. A judge is the only one that has the power to chose which opinion is law.

That is correct. I never said otherwise.

Do you think the Ohio Supreme Court would rule that off-duty peace officers are subject to the restrictions that “licensees” are subjected to in R.C. § 2923.126(B) and R.C. § 2923.126(C) even though the very text of the statute expressly excludes peace officers from those restrictions? I should also note again that the Ohio General Assembly had over 12 years to change the statute to include peace officers, but instead added two separate classifications of persons that both the rights and the restrictions of “licensees” applies to.

As to the first sentence of the second paragraph, where does it say that peace officers are excluded from those restrictions? And as to the Ohio supreme court, the court has show themselves to be political hacks, therefore who knows what they would rule.

As to the second sentence of the second paragraph, since R.C. § 2923.126 doesn't say what you says it says, there would be nothing to change.

Even R.C. § 2923.123 allows courts to keep off duty officers from carrying in courthouses.

Subsection (E)(1) of R.C. § 2923.126, as enacted, extended the right that an Ohio CHL holder has to carry a concealed handgun to peace officers, but did not extend the restrictions that apply to CHL holders that are contained in R.C. § 2923.126(B) and R.C. § 2923.126(C) even though R.C. § 2923.126(D) extended the right and the restrictions to out-of-state concealed carry holders.

The Ohio Attorney General explained that in an opinion in 2004, and concluded that:

"In light of the definition of 'licensee' set out in R.C. 2923.124(D) and the specific language used in R.C. 2923.126(D) and R.C. 2923.1213(C), it is our opinion that the General Assembly intended to extend to off-duty law enforcement officers who are peace officers, as defined in R.C. 2935.01(B), the right to carry a concealed handgun, but did not intend to subject these officers to the same restrictions as are imposed upon a person issued a license to carry a concealed handgun under R.C. 2923.125. Accordingly, neither R.C. 2923.126(B) nor R.C. 2923.126(C) restricts the right of a law enforcement officer who is a peace officer, as defined in R.C. 2935.01(B), to carry a concealed handgun while off duty."

Subsequently, the Ohio General Assembly added retired peace officers and members of the military to R.C. § 2923.126 as having the same right as an Ohio licensee to carry a concealed handgun along with the following language: "*** and is subject to the same restrictions as specified in this section." See R.C. § 2923.126(E)(2) and R.C. § 2923.126(F)(1) respectively. When doing so, the General Assembly declined to add that language to subsection (E)(1), which grants peace officers the right to carry a concealed handgun.

I agree with you about the Ohio Supreme Court. That is why I asked the question about how they would rule on this issue.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

JediSkipdogg wrote:Liberty, so police officers are paid 24/7? Because if they are always on-duty using your logic, the IRS and FLSA may want to get ahold of those officers and make sure they are paid appropriately. Also, almost every department I know says officers cannot have alcohol or be under the influence of any drug while on duty, therefore, using your logic police in the state of Ohio can never drink alcohol.

I think the Ohio Supreme Court would rule that police officers are off-duty unless their is an act that they could possibly assist in, even if that means call 911 and report the crime. I'm not great at looking up specific case law, but I know many courts have ruled police officers have no more of an obligation to act in a crime while off duty than you or I. The difference is if they do, good samaritan laws will not protect them and they place their department at a risk of liability.

Apparently a Police Officer can never consume beverage alcohol ?? Because if they are on duty 24/7/365 and must be armed at all times and prepared to enforce the laws of Ohio...they can never be drunk ??